Volume I Part 16 (2/2)

Between the second verse, ”I purchased her to me,” etc., and the third, ”Then I said unto her,” etc., we must supply. And I took her in marriage and loved her; but she committed adultery. That this is the sound view, appears clearly from ver. 2. According to the right exposition (compare p. 195 sqq.), this verse can be referred only to the first beginning of the relation betwixt the Lord and the people of Israel--to that only by which He acquired the right of property in this people, on delivering them from Egypt. This is confirmed, moreover, by the second half of the verse under consideration: ”As the Lord loveth,”

etc. Here the love of the Lord to Israel in its widest extent is spoken of. Every limitation of it to a single manifestation--be it a [Pg 275]renewal of love after the apostasy, or the corrective discipline inflicted from love--is quite arbitrary; and the more so, because, by the addition, ”And they turned,” etc., the love of G.o.d is represented as running parallel with the apostasy of the people. The same result is obtained from a consideration of the first half. For what ent.i.tles us to explain ”love” by ”love again,” or even by ”_rest.i.tue amoris signa_”

as is done by those who hold the opinion, already refuted, that the woman is _Gomer_? The word ”love” corresponds exactly with ”as the Lord loveth.” If the latter must be understood of the love of the Lord in its whole extent,--if it does not designate merely the manifestation of love, but love itself,--how can a more limited view be taken of the former ”love?” How could we explain, as is done by those who defend the reference to a new marriage, the words, ”Beloved of her friend, and an adulteress,” as referring to a former marriage of the wife, and as tantamount to--who was beloved by her former husband, and yet committed adultery? In that case, there would be the greatest dissimilarity betwixt the type and the ant.i.type. Who, in that case, is to be the type of the Lord? Is it to be the former husband, or the prophet? If the figure is at all to correspond with the reality,--the first member with the second, the ???? can be none other than the prophet himself.--Let us now proceed to particulars, ???, ”love,” is stronger than ??, ”take,”

in chap. i. 2. There, marriage only was spoken of; here, marriage from love and in love. This is still more emphatically pointed out by the subsequent words ???? ??, and contrasted with the conduct of the wife, which is indicated by ?????, so that the sense is this: ”In love take a wife who, although she is beloved by thee, her friend, commits adultery, and with whom--I tell it to thee beforehand--thou wilt live in a constant antagonism of love, and of ingrat.i.tude, the grossest violation of love.” The word ”_love_” has a reference to the love preceding and effecting the marriage; the word ”_beloved_,”

to the love uninterruptedly continuing during the marriage, and notwithstanding the continued adultery, unless we should say--and it is quite admissible--that ”love” implies, at the same time, ”to take out of love,” and ”to love constantly.” Instead of ”beloved by _thee_” it is said, ”beloved by her _friend_.” Many have been thereby misled; but it only serves to make the contrast more [Pg 276]prominent.[1] ???? has only one signification--that of _friend_. It never, by itself, means ”fellow-man,” never ”fellow-Jew,” never ”one with whom we have intercourse.” The Pharisees were quite correct in understanding it as the opposite of enemy. In their gloss, Matt. v. 43, ?a? ?s?se?? t??

?????? s??, there was one thing only objectionable--the most important, it is true--that by the friend, they understood only him whom their heart, void of love, loved indeed; not him whom they ought to have loved, because G.o.d had united him to them by the sacred ties of friends.h.i.+p and love. Thus, what ought to have awakened them to love, just served them as a palliation for their hatred. Now this signification, which alone is the settled one, is here also very suitable. He whom the wife criminally forsakes, is not a severe husband, but her loving friend, whom she herself formerly acknowledged as such, and who always remains the same. Entirely parallel is Jer.

iii. 20: ”As a wife is faithless towards her _friend_, so have ye been faithless to Me;” compare ver. 4: ”Hast thou not formerly called me. My father, _friend_ of my youth art thou?” Compare also Song of Sol. v.

16. The correct meaning was long ago seen by _Calvin_: ”There is,” says he, ”an expressiveness in this word. For often, when women prost.i.tute themselves, they complain that they have done it on account of the too great severity of their husbands, and that they are not treated by their husbands with sufficient kindness. But if a husband delight in having his wife with him, if he treat her kindly and perform the duties of a husband, she is then less excusable. Hence, it is this most heinous ingrat.i.tude of the people that is here expressed, and set in opposition to the infinite mercy and kindness of the Lord.” For a still better insight into the meaning of the first half of this verse, we subjoin the _paraphrasis_ by _Manger_: ”Seek thee a wife in whom thou art to have thy delight, and whom thou art to treat with such love, that, even if she, by her unfaithfulness, violate the sacred rights of matrimony, and thou, for that reason, canst no longer live with her, [Pg 277]she shall still remain dear to thee, and shall be willingly received again into thy favour, as soon as she shall have reformed her life.”--In the second half of the verse, there is a verbal agreement with pa.s.sages of the Pentateuch, so close that it cannot certainly be accidental. Compare on ????? ???? ?????? ?????, Deut. vii. 8, ?????

???? ????,--an agreement which undoubtedly deserves so much more attention, that we have already established the relations.h.i.+p of the pa.s.sage with ver. 2. On ???? ?? ????? ?????, compare Deut. x.x.xi. 18: ”I will hide My face in that day for all the evil they are doing, for they turn to other G.o.ds,” ????? ?????--.??? ?? ????? ?????, ”grape-cakes,”

has, as to its substance, been already explained, p. 194 sqq. It is the result of an entire misunderstanding, that some interpreters should here think of the love of feasting and banqueting. Others (as _Gesenius_) are anxious to prove that such cakes were used at the sacrifices which were offered to idols. The grape-cakes are rather idolatry itself; but the expression, ”They love grape-cakes,” adds an essential feature to the words, ”They turn to other G.o.ds.” It points, namely, to the sinful origin of idolatry. Earnest and strict religion is substantial and wholesome food; but idolatry is soft food, which is sought only by the dainty and squeamish. That which is true of idolatry, is true also of the service of sin, and of the world in general, which, in Job xx. 12, appears under the image of meat which is, in the mouth, as sweet as honey from the comb, but which is, in the belly, changed into the gall of asps. In the symbolism of the law, honey signified the _l.u.s.t_ of the world; compare my work _Die Opfer der Heil. Schrift_, S. 44. It is only the derivation of ??????, the signification of which is sufficiently established by parallel pa.s.sages, which requires investigation. We have no hesitation in deriving it from ????, ”fire;” hence it means properly, ”that which has been subjected to fire (compare ???????) = that which has been baked,”

”cakes.” The derivation from ???, ”to found,” has of late become current; but the objections to it are:--partly, that the transition from ”founding,” to ”cake,” is by no means an easy one; partly and mainly, that there is not the slightest trace of this root elsewhere in Hebrew. It is a.s.serted, indeed, that ?????? itself is found in Is. xvi.

7, with a signification which renders necessary the derivation from the verb ???. But, even in that pa.s.sage, the signification of [Pg 278]

”cakes” must be retained. The following reasons are in favour of it, and against the signification ”ruins,” adopted by _Gesenius_, _Winer_, and _Hitzig_. 1. The signification ”cakes” deserves, _ceteris paribus_, a decided preference, because it is established by the other pa.s.sages.

It is only for reasons the most cogent that we can grant that one and the same word has two meanings, and these not at all connected with each other. 2. The transition from the meaning ”foundation,” which alone can be derived from the verb ???, to that of ”_ruins_,” is by no means so easy as those critics would represent it. With respect to a rebuilding, for which the ruins' afford the foundation, they might, it is true, be called foundations, compare Is. lviii. 12, but not where destruction only is concerned. Who would speak of howling over foundations, instead of howling over ruins? 3. The context is quite decisive. If we translate ?????? by ”ruins,” the subsequent ?? is quite inexplicable. This little word, upon which so much depends, performs also the office of a guide: ”For this reason Moab howls, for Moab altogether does he howl, for the cakes of Kirhareseth you do sigh, wholly afflicted; _for_ the vineyards of Heshbon are withered, the vine of Sibmah, the grapes of which intoxicated the lord of the nations,”

etc. Then, ver. 9, ”Therefore I weep with Jaeser for the vine of Sibmah.” If there be no more grapes, neither are there any more grape-cakes. The destruction of the vineyards is therefore the cause of the howling for the cakes. That such cakes, moreover, were prepared in many places in Moab, sufficiently appears from the name of the place Dibhlathaim, _i.e._, town of cakes. It may be remarked further, that we are not ent.i.tled to a.s.sume a sing. ???? as given by lexicographers along with ???? ;????? likewise forms the plural ?????.

Ver. 2. ”_And I bought her to me for fifteen pieces of silver, and a homer of barley, and a lethech of barley._” Compare the explanation of this verse, p. 195 sqq.

Ver. 3. ”_And I said unto her. Thou art to sit for me many days: thou art not to wh.o.r.e, and thou art not to belong to a man; and so I also to thee._”

The sitting has the accessory idea of being forsaken and solitary, which may be explained from the circ.u.mstance, that he who is not invited to go with us is left to sit. Thus, _e.g._, Gen. x.x.xviii. 11: ”Sit as a widow in thy fathers house, until Shelah [Pg 279]my son be grown;” Is. xlvii. 8, where Babylon says, ”I shall not _sit_ as a widow,” etc. The Fut. in this and the following verses must not be taken in an imperative sense, as meaning, thou shalt sit for me, thou shalt not wh.o.r.e; the explanation given in ver. 4, and in the parallel pa.s.sage in chap. ii. 8, 9, are alike opposed to it. The husband will not subject his wife to a moral probation, but he will lock her up, so that she must _ sit_ solitary, and _cannot_ wh.o.r.e. With reference to this. _Manger_ strikingly remarks: ”There is, in that very severity, the beginning of leniency; 'sit for me,' _i.e._, I who have been so unworthily treated by thee, and who yet am thy most affectionate husband, and who, though now at a distance from thee, will not altogether forget thee.” The ?? indicates that the sitting of the wife must have reference to the prophet. Quite similar is Exod. xxiv. 14: ”And he said unto the elders, ??? ???, Sit ye here for us until we return to you.” The phrase itself, which must not be explained by ”to sit in expectation of some one,” does not indicate in what way the sitting has reference to him. The issue of the whole proceeding, described in ver. 5, clearly shows, however, that it is not inflicted by him as a merited punishment, as an effect of his just indignation, but rather that we must think chiefly of his compa.s.sionate love, which makes use of these means in order to render the reunion possible.--The distinction between ”to wh.o.r.e,” and ”to belong to a man,” is obvious: the former denotes _vagos et promiscuus amores_; the other, connubial connection with a single individual; compare, _e.g._, Ezek. xvi. 8; Lev. xxi. 3. But the question is,--Who is to be understood by the ”_man?_” Several refer it to the prophet exclusively. Thus _Jerome_ says, ”Thou shalt not shamefully prost.i.tute thyself with other lovers, nor be legally connected with me, the man to whom thou art married.”

Others admit, at least, a co-reference to the prophet = the Lord. By the words, ”Thou art not to wh.o.r.e,” they say that the intercourse with the lovers is excluded; but, by, ”Thou art not to belong to a man,” the intercourse with the husband also; so that the sense would be, ”Thou shalt not have connubial intercourse either with me, or with any other man.” But the correct view is to refer both to the intercourse with the lovers; and so, indeed, that the former designates the giving of herself up, now to one, then to another; while the latter points to her entering [Pg 280]into a firm relation to a single individual; just as, in point of fact, the relation of Israel to the idols. .h.i.therto was a whoring. According as it suited their inclination, they made, now this, and then that, G.o.d of the neighbouring nations an object of their wors.h.i.+p; whilst a marriage connection would have been formed, if they had entered with any one of them into a permanent and exclusive connection, similar to that which had heretofore existed between them and the Lord. This explanation is required by the words, ”And so I also to thee,” at the close of the verse. If the words, ”Thou shalt not belong to any man,” referred to the prophet, then ”thou shalt not have any intercourse with me” would imply, ”I shall not have any intercourse with thee;” and did not require any new mention to be made.--The questions, however, now arise:--By what means was the state of things corresponding to the figure to be brought about? By what is adulterous Israel to be prevented from whoring, and from belonging to any man? By what means is idolatry to be extirpated from among the people? The answer has been already given in our remarks on chap. ii. 8, 9. The idols manifest themselves to Israel in their supposed gifts. If these were taken from them,--if they were entirely stripped, and plunged into want and misery, they could not fail to recognise the vanity of all their previous efforts, along with the vanity of the object of their wors.h.i.+p, while their love to him could not but vanish. The absolute inability of the idols to afford consolation and help to the people in their sufferings must have put an end to their showing them allegiance.--The last words, ”And I also to thee,” are explained by the greater number of interpreters to mean, ”I also will be thine.”

_Manger_ explains them thus: ”I will not altogether break the tie of our love, nor marry another wife; but I will remain thine, will at last receive thee again into my favour, and restore thee to the position of my wife.” _De Wette_ interprets them thus: ”But then I will come to thee;” _Umbreit_: ”And I also only to thee;” _Ewald_: ”And yet I am full of love towards thee.” But the words, ”And I also to thee,” are rather tantamount to--”I will conduct myself in a similar manner towards thee.” Now two things may const.i.tute this equality of conduct.

_Either_ it is conceived thus:--that the prophet is placed in parallelism with the wife. The latter has lost all claims upon the prophet; she has violated connubial [Pg 281]fidelity, and, hence, has no t.i.tle to demand that he should observe it. But that which she cannot demand from him, he does, from the necessity of his nature. He promises to her that, during the proceeding which has commenced against her, he would not enter into any new connection; and by holding out to her the hope of her returning, at some future period, to her old relation to him, he makes it more easy for her to break off the sinful connections which have destroyed it. Without a figure: The Lord, from His forbearance and mercy, waits for the reformation of those who hitherto were His people; does not drive them to despair by receiving another people in their place. _Or_, The prophet is placed in parallelism with the other man. As the wife does not enter into any relation with that man, so the prophet also abstains from any nearer intercourse with her.

The latter explanation (adopted by _Simson_ and _Hitzig_) is to be preferred. The exclusiveness cannot in the same sense be applicable to the prophet, representing the Lord, as to the wife, representing the people. So early as in Deut. x.x.xii. 21, we read: ”They have moved Me to jealousy with that which is not G.o.d, they have provoked Me to anger with their vanities; and I will move them to jealousy with those which are not a people, I will provoke them to anger with a foolish nation,”

After all that had, in the Song of Solomon, been predicted regarding the reception of the Gentile nations into the kingdom of G.o.d and Christ, and about the receiving again into it of Israel, to be effected by their instrumentality (compare my _Comment. on Song of Sol._, S.

239), the thought suggested by the former view would be quite incomprehensible. Quite decisive, however, is ver. 4, in which the thought, which is here in a symbolical garb, is expressed in plain language. There, however, not only the intercourse with the idols, but the connection with Jehovah also, appears to be intermitted. The reason why the prophet does not enter into a closer connection with the wife is, that her repentance is more of a negative, than of a positive character. By want and isolation, her hard heart is to be broken, true repentance to be called forth, and the flame of cordial conversion and love to her husband, whose faithful love she had so ill requited, to be enkindled in her. In favour of the explanation given by us, and in opposition to that first mentioned, the ?? is decisive. Against this, that other explanation, [Pg 282]in its various modifications, tries its strength in vain. ”I also will be thine, or will adhere to thee,” would require in the preceding context, ”Thou shalt be mine, or adhere to me;” but of this, there is no trace. It is only in ver. 5 that, with an _after_, the conversion is reported. In favour of that false interpretation it is said, and with some plausibility, that the explanation would otherwise be more extended than the symbol: The latter would contain the outward dealing only; while the former, in ver. 5, would contain at the same time its salutary effect. But, even according to this explanation, the words would not correspond with ver.

5. _Here_, the showing of mercy would be announced without the mention, even by a word, of the sincere return to the husband--and this, altogether apart from the ??, would be quite unsuitable, and would, moreover, be opposed by the a.n.a.logy of chap. ii. 9--while, in ver. 5, not the showing of mercy, but only the reformation, would form the subject. In that case, it ought not to have been said, ”They shall return to the Lord,” but rather, ”The Lord shall return to them.” But this plausible reason falls to the ground, along with the unfounded supposition that the two last verses contain the explanation. The correct view is, that the explanation is limited to ver. 4. Ver. 5 must be considered as an appendix, in which, without any figurative covering, the effect is described which will be produced upon the nation by these outward dealings. The symbol and its explanation extend only as far as the main object of the prophet in the section under review,--that object being to present the impending captivity in its true light, and thereby to secure against levity and despair when it should appear.

Ver. 4. ”_For many days the children of Israel shall sit without a king, and without a prince, and without a sacrifice, and without a pillar, and without an Ephod and Teraphim._”

?? is used because the reason of the performance of the symbolical action lies in its signification. Concerning ???, see the remarks on ver. 3; compare, moreover. Lament, i. 1: ”How does the city sit solitary that was full of people! she has become as a widow.”--The question is, whether, by the religious objects here mentioned, such only are to be understood as belonged to the wors.h.i.+p of the idols, or such also as belonged to the wors.h.i.+p of Jehovah. The following furnishes the reply. The ???? only [Pg 283]can be considered as belonging exclusively to the idolatrous wors.h.i.+p. Such pillars always occur only as being consecrated to the idols--especially to Baal. It cannot be proved in any way that, contrary to the express command in Lev. xxvi. 1, Deut. xvi. 22, they were, in the kingdom of Israel, consecrated to the Lord also; compare 2 Kings iii. 2, xvii. 10, x.

26-28. On the other hand, among the objects mentioned, there is also one, the ????, the mantle for the shoulders of the high priest, on which the Urim and Thummim were placed, which must be considered as belonging exclusively to the wors.h.i.+p of Jehovah; at least there is not the smallest trace to be found that it was part of any idolatrous wors.h.i.+p. It is true that _Gesenius_, in the _Thesaurus_, p. 135, gives _s. v._ ????, under 2, the signification _statua_, _simulacrum idoli_, and, besides the pa.s.sages under consideration, refers to Jud. viii. 27, xvii. 5, xviii. 14, 17. But one requires only to examine these pa.s.sages a little more minutely, to be convinced that the metamorphosis of Jehovah into an idol is as little justified as the changing of the mantle into a statue. From the personal character of Gideon, who was so zealous for the Lord against the idols, we cannot at all think of idolatry in Jud. viii. 27. In the _Dissertations on the Genuineness of the Pentateuch_, vol. ii. p. 80, it has been proved that the Ephod of Gideon was a precious imitation of that of the high priest. In chap.

xvii. 5, we need only to consider these words: ”And the man Micah had an house of G.o.d, and made an Ephod and Teraphim, and consecrated one of his sons, and he became a priest to him.” Afterwards, Micah took a _Levite_ for a priest. But for what reason should he have been better suited for that purpose than any other man? The answer is given in ver.

13: ”Then said Micah, Now I know that Jehovah will do me good, for the Levite has become a priest to me.” The ignorant man knows after all thus much, that the Levites alone are the only legitimate servants of Jehovah, and he rejoices, therefore, that he had now remedied the former irregularity. Jud. xviii. 14 does not require any particular ill.u.s.tration, for it is the same Ephod which is spoken of in that pa.s.sage; but we must still direct attention to vers. 5 and 6 of that chapter. ”Then they (the Danites) said unto him (the Levite), Ask G.o.d, we pray thee, in order that we may know whether our way in which we go shall be prosperous. And the priest said unto them, Go in [Pg 284]peace, before _Jehovah_ is the way wherein ye go.” Here, then, we have a revelation given to the priest, as is alleged, by means of Ephod and Teraphim; and this revelation is not ascribed to the idols, but to Jehovah, whom alone the Levite wished to serve. From this it appeal's that the graven image and the molten image--which, besides Ephod and Teraphim, according to ver. 14, exist in the house of Micah--must be considered as representations of Jehovah, similar to the calves in the kingdom of the ten tribes. In vol. ii. pp. 78, 79, of my _Dissertations on the Genuineness of the Pentateuch_, it has been demonstrated that the Ephod of Micah was, along with the Teraphim, an apeing of the high-priestly Ephod with the Urim and Thummim. The four objects mentioned in Judges xvii. and xviii. are such as were separable although connected, and connected although separable. The _molten work_ is the pedestal under the image; the image is clothed with the Ephod, and in the Ephod were the Teraphim, from whom information and good counsel for the future were expected. For, that this is the object of the whole contrivance, is plain from chap. xviii. 5, 6, where the priest asks counsel of G.o.d for the Danites.--With regard to the other two objects mentioned in the verse before us, viz., the sacrifice and Teraphim, a reference, at least exclusive, to idolatrous wors.h.i.+p, cannot be by any means maintained. As sacrifices are mentioned in the widest generality, without any limitation in the preceding context, there is certainly nothing which could in the least ent.i.tle us to exclude the sacrifices which were offered to Jehovah. The Teraphim are intermediate deities, by means of which the future is to be disclosed (compare the remarks on Zech. x. 2); they might be brought into connection with every religious system, but are found only once in connection with any other religion than that of Jehovah,--and this in a case where a non-Israelite is spoken of. It is true, however, that, in substance, the Teraphim belong to the side of idolatry; for, wherever they occur within the religion of Jehovah, they belong to a degenerate condition of it only, which is on a par with idolatry. It would appear that they are here contrasted with the Ephod, as the illegal means for ascertaining the future, in opposition to the legal means. That the Ephod was used for discovering the divine will, is seen from 1 Sam.

xxiii. 9, x.x.x. 7. The Teraphim, in like manner, served to explore [Pg 285]the future. A closer connection of the two seems to be indicated by the circ.u.mstance that ??? is omitted before ?????.--But how can we account for this strange intermingling of what belonged to the idols with what belonged to Jehovah, since it cannot but be done intentionally? It points to the dark mixture which at that time existed among the people, and is a kind of ironical reflection upon it.--The Lord makes them disgusted with idolatry, and all that belongs to it, through His visitations, in which they seek in vain the help of the idols, and become thoroughly acquainted with their vanity; compare remarks in ver. 3. At the same time, however, all the pledges of His grace are taken from them, so that they get into an altogether isolated position. He withdraws from them their independent government, the altar and priesthood--the former as a just punishment for their rebellion against the dynasty ordained by G.o.d (compare chap. viii. 4), of which, first Israel, and then Judah, had made themselves guilty.--As regards the historical reference of this prophecy, interpreters are divided, and refer it either to the a.s.syrian, the Babylonish, or the Romish exile. The greater number of them, however, refer it exclusively to the last. This is especially the case with the Jewish interpreters; _e.g._, _Kimchi_, who says: ”These are the days of the exile, in which we are now; we have neither an Israelitish king nor an Israelitish prince, but are under the dominion of the Gentiles and their kings.”

The princ.i.p.al defenders of a direct reference to the a.s.syrian captivity, are _Venema_ (_Dissert._ p. 232) and _Manger_. The decision depends chiefly upon what we are to understand by ”the children of Israel.” If these are the whole people, it is arbitrary to a.s.sign any narrower limits to the _Word_ of G.o.d, than to His _deed_. The prophecy must, in that case, comprehend everything in which the idea is realized; and this so much the more, as the spiritual eye of the prophet, directed to the idea only, does not generally regard the intervals which, in the fulfilment, lie between the various realizations of the _idea_. But now, ver. 5 would seem to lead us to entertain the opinion, that, in the first instance, the prophet has in view the children of Israel in the more limited sense only. The words, ”They shall return and seek David their king,” imply a reference to the then existing apostasy of the ten tribes from the dynasty of David. But the future apostasy of the sons of Judah also from [Pg 286]David their king may be as well _presupposed_ here, as, in chapter ii. 2, their being carried away; and this so much the rather, as in chap. ii. 2, the words, ”They appoint themselves a king,” suggest that the sons of Judah also, no less than the sons of Israel, are without a head, and hence have apostatized from David the king. And it is so much the more natural to adopt such a supposition, as the Song of Solomon had already described so minutely the rebellion of the whole people against the glorious descendant of David--the heavenly Solomon--to which the apostasy of the ten tribes from the house of David was only a prelude.

Considering the whole relation in which Hosea stands to the Song of Solomon, we could scarcely imagine that, in this respect, he should not have alluded to, and resumed its contents. _In the whole third chapter there is nothing which refers exclusively to the ten tribes._ Chap.

iii. 2 has reference to all Israel. Throughout the whole Book of Hosea also, as well as by the second Israelitish prophet Amos (compare the remarks on Amos, chap ix.), Judah and Israel are viewed together, both as regards apostasy and punishment (v. 5, 12, viii. 14, x. 11, etc.), and as regards salvation, vi. 1-4, etc. Of special importance is the comparison of the remarkable prophecy of Azariah in 2 Chron. xv. 2-4, which was uttered at the time of Asa, king of Judah, and which so nearly coincides with the one before us, that the idea suggests itself of an allusion to it by Hosea: ”Hear ye me, Asa, and all Judah and Benjamin: The Lord will be with you, if you are with Him; and if ye seek Him, He will be found of you; and if ye forsake Him, He will forsake you. And many days will be to Israel when there is no true G.o.d,[2] and no teaching priest,[3] and no law. Then they return in their trouble unto Jehovah the G.o.d of Israel, and they seek Him, and He is found of them.” If the fundamental prophecy refer to all Israel, the same must be the case with the prophecy under consideration. The condition in which the Jews are, up to the present day, is described in both of these prophecies with remarkable clearness; and hence we may most confidently entertain [Pg 287]the hope, that there shall be a fulfilment also of that which, in them as well as in the Song of Solomon, has been foretold regarding the glorious issue of these dealings of G.o.d.

<script>